Is Liberalism Intellectually Bankrupt?


HT for graphic:

Warning!  Politically incorrect post coming up here on Talk Wisdom!

Marco Rubio slam’s Obama’s normalization with Cuba

Back in February, 2014, in an almost prophetic speech, Rubio shared an explosive rebuke against a Democrat who apparently had “praise” for Cuba!

Marco Rubio Tears Communism Apart After Democrat Praises Cuba.

These are just two examples of how intellectually, politically, and morally bankrupt that the ideology of liberalism/progressivism truly is – especially when it comes to their unbelievable support for communist dictators and their brutal regimes!

Does it make you wonder what in hell this BADministration is thinking?  No surprise, really.  We have been suffering under this oligarchy for six years now – why should ANYTHING surprise us anymore?

The question is, just what motivates these people??

I may have found some answers to that question.

While perusing the Word Press reader, I ran across an article that definitely caught my eye. It asks a particular question that I think many Bible-believing followers of Jesus Christ would like answered.

John C. Goodman over at asks the question, Is Liberalism Intellectually Bankrupt?

The article is good, but some of the comments there are even better!

The portion of the article that I would like to focus on is included in the following excerpts. I have included some commentary of my own.

The author mentions how several liberal/progressive publications are all in trouble due to the fact that readership is down. He also lists several flip-flops made, and how such flip-flops become automatically accepted by Democrats who live in the liberal/progressive mindset!  As the author so accurately describes it, they are like “lemmings – all in lock step, without embarrassment or regret.”

The author continues:

So this is a good time to ask: What does the Democratic Party stand for? And if the answer is: liberalism, what does it mean to be a liberal? Or if you prefer, what does it mean to be a progressive?

You would think that liberalism is a belief in a set of public policy ideas. But as it turns out, those ideas are hard to pin down.

I grew up in New Jersey. My parents were staunch Democrats who deeply admired John F. Kennedy. My dad was an artist and created a beautiful ink sketch portrait of Kennedy from a popular photograph of him during that era in the 1960’s.

I can recall going to the Democratic picnics that were held in our town during election time. You would think that everyone was a democrat! There was a wooden grandstand and dancing floor, a band played all afternoon, and hot dogs, hamburgers, corn on the cob, and other tasty fare were sold to attendees. It was the summer of 1961, and I was 6 years old. The adults had signs and hats, showing their support for Kennedy to be elected as President of the United States. American flags were everywhere, and many WWII veterans wore their uniforms and metals with pride! This was The Greatest Generation who fought hard and won the battles against Nazism and Imperial Japan’s totalitarianism.

As I grew up and saw how liberalism/progressivism of the 1960’s and on through the years had subsequently destroyed the original ideology of the Democratic party, I embraced the Republican party. Voting for the greatest president in modern history – Ronald Reagan – and seeing his accomplishments was one of the highlights of my political life. When Clinton became president, the slide downward into progressivism made my husband and I groan with disgust, but that was nothing compared to what Barack Obama has done over the past 6 years! I continue to ask for God’s mercy and grace so that we can get through the next 2 years, and then hopefully get a conservative candidate into office in 2017 who will start the recovery of America from the damage that Obama and his cronies have done. My dad, who died in 1995, would have been absolutely horrified by what Obama has done to destroy this nation! He would have seen today’s Democrat party as unrecognizable.

Back to the article:

How do we explain all this? In What Is A Progressive? I proposed part of the answer: liberalism is sociology rather than an ideology. The same can be said of conservatism.

But what kind of sociologies are they? Years ago, David Henderson suggested that think tanks and others involved in the war of ideas are actually in the “market for excuses.” That is, politicians need intellectual justification for things they want to do for non-intellectual reasons.

When I looked up “ideology,” there are  glaringly negative definitions listed within the definition of that term.  Therefore,  it does fit in describing the “intellectual bankruptcy” of  liberalism/progressivism.

noun, plural ideologies.

the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.

Philosophy. a.the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
b.a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.

theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature

However, the British definition places a positive influence towards the term and also fits well in the discussion here:


(philosophy, sociol) the set of beliefs by which a group or society orders reality so as to render it intelligible


Let’s look at “sociology”:

sociology definition

The systematic study of human society, especially present-day societies. Sociologists study the organization, institutions, and development of societies, with a particular interest in identifying causes of the changing relationships among individuals and groups. ( See social science.)


So, the author claims that “liberalism is sociology rather than ideology.” I think that it has to be a combination of both. The adherence to liberalism/progressivism, despite its obvious flaws is like a religion to those who hold such views. Why? Because they are so deeply rooted in their ideology that the thought of  steering away from their ideological religion is anathema to them! The liberals/progressives that I know (and there aren’t many) will hold onto their beliefs no matter how many lies, inconsistencies, flip-flops, hatred, evil, sin, and death come about as a result of the intellectual bankruptcy of such beliefs.

For example.  A teacher once told me that when he revealed that he had voted for Obama – twice – half of the class groaned and the other half cheered. One of the parents of the group of students that groaned confronted him about his vote. She was angry and wondered how a teacher in a Catholic school could ever vote for someone who is so pro-abortion that he (Obama) thinks it’s OK to let a child born  – as the result of a botched abortion –  lay on a steel, cold, table and be left to die? [See the Born Alive Infants Protection Act]. Do you know what the teacher stated in reply to her?  The Bible says to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.” Sorry folks…that’s taking Scripture completely out of context!! Jesus made that particular statement in answer to a question regarding the coins (and whose face was on them) in question and for the purpose of giving money for taxes  – it wasn’t about social issues!  Twisting the meaning of Scripture is a lie – and often done to attempt to prove one’s point of view.   Doing so is one example of “intellectual justification for things one wants to do (or believe)  for non-intellectual reasons.”

Continuing on:

But ideology doesn’t dominate. In fact, it gets in the way. What is needed are ways of thinking that are not necessarily coherent, but provide intellectual excuses for the sets of policy positions that emerge.


The author lumps in conservatism with liberalism here, but many conservatives also happen to be Bible-based Christians. Therefore, utilizing God’s Word (not our own!!) to present coherent, intellectual reasons for policy positions differs from the liberal/progressive sociological excuses often used to push their agenda.


The problem for Democrats is that the party is increasingly ruled by the “new oligarchs.” In his review of The New Class Conflict, by Joel Kotkin, a lifelong Democrat, George Will explains that there is a:

growing alliance between the ultra-wealthy and the instruments of state power. In 2012, Barack Obama carried eight of America’s 10 wealthiest counties.

Unfortunately for party harmony, the oligarchs are basically anti-job creation and anti-economic growth – which they see both as a threat to the environment and a threat to their life style. This puts them squarely at odds with the working class voters who used to be the backbone of the Democratic Party.

As I explained in “How Liberals Live,” once the plutocrats settle in a community like Boulder, Colorado or Portland, Oregon, they become fiercely anti-development and doggedly determined to shape their community in ways that price the middle class out of the housing market. As a result, wherever wealthy liberals tend to congregate, housing is more expensive and there is more inequality. Again from Will:

In New York, an incubator of progressivism, Kotkin reports, the “wealthiest one percent earn a third of the entire city’s personal income — almost twice the proportion for the rest of the country.” California, a one-party laboratory for progressivism, is home to 111 billionaires and the nation’s highest poverty rate (adjusted for the cost of living)….

California is no longer a destination for what Kotkin calls “aspirational families:” In 2013, he says, Houston had more housing starts than all of California.

The bolded paragraph describes exactly what I have seen regarding the change of the “backbone of the Democratic Party” from the 1960’s versus today’s oligarchy that is deeply harming all Americans – especially the working class!

The following are some of the comments posted after the article. Many of them hit the nail on the head when it comes to explaining exactly why “liberalism/progressivism” is bad for our nation and why it is politically and morally bankrupt.

Rondoman Wrote: Dec 20, 2014 11:07 PM

The one defining moment when a liberal is no longer able to be enlightened is when he accepts abortion as an acceptable option. It destroys his sense of humanity, brainwashes him, and makes him open to programming. It is not something that needs to be learned; it is the natural result of a mind that refuses to put compassion and reason above personal inflated self-worth. All liberalism degenerates to communism. Given enough time, the whole world would become sadistic, masochistic, cannibals. It is an insane march into the recesses of hell that has no bottom.

Proverbs 18:2 – A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.

Proverbs 1:7 – The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

I believe that says it all.

sdeal Wrote: Dec 20, 2014 10:37 PM

It must be difficult to identify with the party platform….it is very racist:

It must be difficult being indoctrinated with racism and having to cover up the fact that you support Eugenics, Abortion of Blacks and Minorities:

It must be a drag when your party is checking off the Communist Goals:

And it must be embarrassing when you[r] party needs to lie to win an argument, and encourages it’s fellow liberals to do the same:

Finally, it must really be embarrassing when you have to get most of the media to walk in lock step in reporting (excluding) the news so you don’t look like an idiot.

Neal from PA Wrote: Dec 20, 2014 10:02 PM

Democrats will face the truth about their changing the rules in the middle of the game to benefit them and will protest loudly. They and the MSM have only themselves to blame.

We the people have finally realized that what democrats, progressive liberals and the uninformed offer is not freedom; and what republicans offer isn’t much better.

“What Democrats now need is a new type of liberalism; one that apologizes for and defends the new Democratic Party reality. That’s a tall order.”

A tall order indeed…since when has a liberal ever apologized for anything?  The new Democratic Party cannot defend reality, because liberals have no idea what reality “IS”.

Of course Republicans aren’t much better; they think they know what reality “IS” and it scares them to the point they forget just what it “IS” they stand for.

“Political Correctness”…is all both know how to do and they don’t do that very well.

America is in deep, deep trouble and it will take “We the People” to straighten this mess out, not politicians playing politics. However, my concern is that “We the People” are not up to the task; maybe someday, but not today.

GOD help us!

Winston8292 Wrote: Dec 20, 2014 2:24 PM

And so the modern Democrat party becomes the fascist party. Not yet in the mold of brown shirts of Germany but definitely like the black shirts of Italy. Obama, their “leader”, actually an empty vessel an[d] a poser, becomes modern Duce.
Blacks and aggressive unions are the party storm troops, extremely violent, anti-almost everything that we consider American values; anti-white; anti-Semites; anti-business.
The main media are the party ideological supporter. The Hollywood is the Party propaganda machine. Schools and colleges are producing future liberal fascists in huge numbers…
Against them all stand weak Republican party, 50% supporting Democrat policies and another 50% trembling of fear of being called names.
You can easily guess the future of this unstable superpower.

Mary218 Wrote: Dec 20, 2014 5:27 PM

As Gaidar documented in “Collapse of an Empire”, after Stalin died, the Kremlin stopped torturing and imprisoning dissenters. He stated communism cannot exist without terror held over the people’s heads. Progressivism is just a slower path to the same ends. The collapse of the USSR allowed its fellow travelers in the US to come out of the woodwork and into the top ranks of politics, academia and media.

jd6892000 Wrote: Dec 20, 2014 1:51 PM

Liberal progressives, as they are today, are not intellectual at all. They believe they are the intellectual superior of everyone else, yet consistently say and do things that prove the exact opposite. They also have little or no concept of right and wrong, not caring who gets hurt on the way to achieving whatever goals they set. Goals that are generally vague and unachievable. They are smart enough to know that they have to rely on complete opacity and subterfuge to get people to go along with their schemes because they can’t rely on logic or facts, none of which they possess.

Stam Wrote: Dec 20, 2014 10:47 AM

Is Liberalism Intellectually Bankrupt?

The title of your article, Mr. Goodman, is obviously a rhetorical question, because the answer is so blindingly obvious, although you spend several paragraphs trying to answer it.

Liberalism is characterized by folks who want to live in a world of fluffy, white clouds, rainbows and dancing unicorns as opposed to the real world that exists. Their religion – liberalism – is, of course, morally and intellectually bankrupt because they have no real idea how to bring about their dream world – and they ignore the reality of the simple fact that for their religion to ever have a chance to work they would have to eliminate a good percentage of the earth’s current population. Their religion is morally and intellectually bankrupt because in some vain effort to bring about their ‘utopia’ liberals have no compunction about employing any and every action no matter now morally and intellectually repugnant such as lying, cheating, stealing, increasing government dependence – actually a form of slavery, denying education to masses etc., all actions which should not be able to exist in their Utopian dream world. Liberalism is morally and intellectually bankrupt as it cannot possibly withstand any scrutiny that includes anything like application of truth, logic and, you know, the true, honest facts of any situation. Which, of course, is why liberals cannot argue or debate honestly and, in case you haven’t noticed their only way to ‘fight back’ against the truth and the facts is to resort to the childish, playground antics of covering their ears and calling any opponent vile names.

Now, the religion of religion itself also cannot withstand any application of ‘facts’ but, at least, it condemns all the actions employed by liberalism i.e. the aforementioned lying and cheating etc. Which, of course, is why liberalism doesn’t like religion and declared war on it. It is a competing ‘religion’ and liberalism also cannot stand up against any competition. As evidenced by side by side states, one that has given itself over to the religion of liberalism. The state beside it, rejecting liberalism, will always be doing better by a measurable metric.

Ronald Reagan Fan Wrote: Dec 20, 2014 10:47 AM

Being a liberal or progressive means:
Being racist, using abortion to commit genocide against African Americans and other people of color, supporting Islam and its rape and murder of women, Islam’s sexual molestation of children, violent oppression of Christians, legalizing Islam, raising taxes on workers and poor people and giving the money to wealthy government bureaucrats.
Being liberal means not being compassionate, not caring about people, being greedy and selfish.
That’s what it means to be a liberal or progressive

Hat tip:

7 Responses to “Is Liberalism Intellectually Bankrupt?”

  1. GMpilot Says:

    I would have been okay to let the holidays pass without contention, but fate rarely calls on us when we think we’re ready.
    There is little time to spend with you now on this, but I’ll answer both Goodman and you: NO. You’ll receive a detailed answer later.

    Bravo Zulu, Christine! You came out swingin’!


  2. christinewjc Says:

    Oh…like you really care about the “holidays” as you put it? Sheesh…you didn’t have anything to say about my previous post – you just choose to include a mockery “god” named Zulu in your reply to this one.

    The answer to the titles’ (rhetorical) question is a big, fat YES! Liberalism/progressivism IS intellectually bankrupt! No “detailed answer” is even needed. Trouble is, those who adhere to such flawed ideology just refuse to recognize many, if not all of the facts presented here and in Marco Rubio’s brilliant speeches.

    Have a Merry…whatever it is… that you celebrate.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Cry and Howl Says:

    Hey Christine. You put this together very well and I can tell each point was lost on dear Mr. Pilot.
    All I can say is “amen” because I read left-wing blogs almost daily and they are seriously degenerate.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. christinewjc Says:

    Thank you Steve! I really admire your ability to put up with reading those left-wing blogs.

    We have experienced the disaster of a person installed in Washington D.C. that can be described as all of the points made in the article and the comments. Yet, the ideological/sociological blindness of the left ignores all the damage that has been done over the past 6 years.

    I long for a patriot president like Ronald Reagan. I worry that the RINOS in Congress will not allow a Conservative to be on the ballot for president in 2017. Just goes to show that no human leader will ever be enough to help us in our need.

    Jesus told us what the world (and our nation, apparently) will be like the closer we get to the end times. Seeing this huge downward spiral here in America deeply grieves me – but we always have the TRUE HOPE of Jesus Christ, our Savior, who will one day Rapture us outta here before the Great Tribulation.

    Meanwhile, we attempt to share the Gospel of Christ with as many people who will hear us. Planting seeds of faith in Christ is all we can do – God, through the Holy Spirit, does the rest within the hearts of those who are seeking Him.


  5. GMpilot Says:

    ”Sheesh…you didn’t have anything to say about my previous post – you just choose to include a mockery “god” named Zulu in your reply to this one.”

    No, madam: Bravo Zulu is military slang for “well done” or “good job”. It was meant as a compliment. If you want a list of gods you can scoff at, I can give you one; there’s no need to invent any.
    And I told you several years ago that I have no problems with Christmas; I enjoy it like everyone else, but I don’t believe that Jesus is ‘the reason for the season”. It was an ancient tradition before Jesus came along, and was incorporated into the new religion after his death.
    Even you must know that Jesus’ actual birth date is unknown.

    As to your previous post: the answer is still “no”.


  6. GMpilot Says:

    So we’re now attempting to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba. Some, including Sen. Rubio, think that’s a misguided strategy. Considering our embargo of Cuba has been in place longer than the senator has been alive, to no effect, one might think it’s time to try something that might actually work.
    A famous general once said, “If you want peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.” Nixon wasn’t afraid to go to Beijing; Reagan wasn’t afraid to talk with Gorbachev; so why—oh, wait—because Obama’s a Democrat. Yeah, that explains it.

    Goodman—whom you don’t spend a lot of space quoting—says ”You would think that liberalism is a belief in a set of public policy ideas. But as it turns out, those ideas are hard to pin down.” I suppose that means that conservatism is not a set of public policy ideas–that they are, instead, a set of policy ideas laid down by private policy-makers, such as banks, energy companies, industrial concerns and the like. That’s not conservatism, that’s plutocracy. I don’t want ExxonMobil telling the government how much money they want from me!
    Liberalism’s great flaw is that it will adopt almost every new cause—at least, for a while—and let the public sort it all out. Conservatism’s great flaw is that it basically fears new ideas, and won’t try any until they’re shown to work. But they seldom try them themselves, letting the liberals do that. If it fails, they can always claim that they were against it. If it succeeds, they’ll say “We knew all along it would work”, and fifty years later claim credit for the success.

    But conservatism (at least the American version of it) is in a downward spiral. It’s a failure.
    Conservatism is a failure because it has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams. And the result is a society unfit for the future. Decades ago, we really were the nation other nations looked up to. We were in a space race with the USSR, and despite our late (and poor) start, we overtook and surpassed them on almost all fronts. Even now, it can still be said that of the 12 people who have ever walked on the moon, all of them have been Americans. Now, we ride into space in the ships of our former rivals. Why? Because conservatives have told us “it costs too much”. But there’s always more money for tanks, and missiles, and planes (but maybe not body armor or soldiers’ pay). Once we lived in hope and confidence. Now, we live mostly in fear. Conservatives are not exclusively to blame for this, but conservatives feed on it.
    Conservatism has succeeded in preserving an unfair distribution of income, social stratification, inopportunity, and injustice. Note that word: preserving. As I said once before, conservatism fights to retain what the liberalism of earlier decades fought to attain. A once-liberal idea becomes the standard over time, and eventually conservatives adopt it as a principle of their own. When that happens, it’s pretty certain that that idea has run its course.
    Modern conservatism is a kind of intellectual poison that corrodes modern economies by degrading politics, society, and culture.In the 1980s a certain conservative president is credited with saying “Government is not the answer to the problem—government is the problem.” When the chief executive of a nation derides the politics that put him there, that teaches disrespect for politics and politicians, as well as the government they were elected to serve. “Multiculturalism” is always spoken of with a sneer—even though the cities are full of Mexican and Vietnamese and (soon, I expect) Iraqi restaurants, established by people who brought their food and traditions and beliefs with them. Most will mix in with American culture; some will not, and their adherents will either die off or leave. But they will change. And that leads us to:
    Societies that choose conservative politics in the middle of historic transformations will, by definition, not move forward. When conservatives deride the ‘dissolution’ of our culture, they ignore the fact that culture is always changing. The America of 1958 was not the same as the America of 1968, much less the America of 2015—but conservatism (as practiced in the US) seems determined to stop time—to keep the nation frozen in 1958, forever. Even some conservatives noted this; William F. Buckley defined a conservative as “a man who stands athwart history, yelling ‘Stop!’”
    At this point, the central tenets of modern conservatism require NO refutation. They are disproven by recent history. Case in point: Kansas. While not a ‘breadbasket’ state, Kansas supplies much of the meat that goes with the bread. In the past four years, its very conservative governor and equally conservative legislature made all the changes they wanted: tax cuts of $800 million for the state’s wealthy, and sales tax cuts of 1.55 percent for everyone else. Result? Among other things, the state’s credit rating got downgraded—twice. To make up for the shortfall, they raided one of the most vulnerable sectors: education. Funds for the schools were cut by as much as 3%. Who was most hurt by these cuts? The poor, as always.
    Reality: there is no example of an advanced economy anywhere in the world following conservative policies and prospering. There are no conservative and prosperous countries. Hence, to attempt conservative politics today is an exercise in magical thinking. Show us one, if you think you can.
    Liberals who engage in “intellectual” debates with conservatives are neither. Because there is no intellect left in conservatism. In some consevatives, yes, but not in conservatism. I hear a lot of talk about “knee-jerk liberals” but the same label applies to conservatives as well. They just react to different stimuli, Conservatism may work in times of national danger, but it’s immoral to manufacture that danger to achieve and maintain power. Barry Goldwater was a true conservative, but he wouldn’t stand a chance in the GOP of today. I doubt if even Reagan would.

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” — John Kenneth Galbraith

    acknowledgement: Umair Haque


  7. Spiritual Apostasy Leads to Moral Awfulness and Political Anarchy | Talk Wisdom Says:

    […] modernism, by its own confession, has failed.  Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr, one of the mouthpieces of liberalism, is quoted as saying that liberal Protestantism has been inclined to sacrifice every characteristic […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: